FIGS. 1A and 1B show two points of view 100, 101, respectively, of an example urban setting comprising the boundary 120 between two properties. In FIG. 1A, there are two areas either side of a dividing line 193, indicated by vectors 191 and 192, which are visible within the field of view of a surveillance camera 190 shown in FIG. 1B. The area indicated by 191 hosts the surveillance camera 190 and occupant 110, who is typically a primary stakeholder in the camera 190, and derives a direct benefit from the presence of the camera 190. The second area, indicated by 192, is a private space vested with an occupant 112 who perceives the neighbouring surveillance camera 190 as an incursion of privacy. As such, the occupant 112 of the second area objects to the installation of the camera 190, creating a bad relationship with the occupant 110 of the first area, possibly leading to the camera 190 being removed or positioned in a sub-optimal location.
The surveillance camera 190 may be equipped with the ability to screen out certain areas of an acquired image. In order to screen out the certain areas of an acquired image, an example screen 121 is overlayed in both points of view 100 and 101. However, objects within a volume indicated by 191, occupied by the camera owner (e.g., 110), may be inadvertently screened out as indicated by the region 111 in FIG. 1B.
Moving features may be masked from an output of the camera 190 if the features are considered to be behind a virtual plane in an image. While such masking works in a technical sense, the implementation of the masking is only evident to the camera owner (e.g., 110) and therefore may not be associated with an increased perception of privacy on the part of the affected party 112. In addition, screening out certain areas or masking, as described above, only considers screens which are substantially parallel to the image plane which limits their utility.